Is science against the Revealed Religion?

[paarsurrey]

And creationists claim creationism should be taught as a science in schools.

They are simply wrong.
Regards

 

[viole]

If so, to prove this, please, quote from :

• A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• From a text book of science
• Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

It depends. Science says that our ancestors were very "primitive" beings in the far past and that we are basically cousins with amoebas and fungi. Not to speak of having a relatively recent common ancestor with rats.

Do you agree that this is not in conflict with revealed religions?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

It depends. Science says that our ancestors were very "primitive" beings in the far past and that we are basically cousins with amoebas and fungi. Not to speak of having a relatively recent common ancestor with rats.
Do you agree that this is not in conflict with revealed religions?
Ciao
- viole

Truthful Religion is not against science.
Humans were created through evolution by G-d; whatever form man might have been in this process.
This is not against the core teachings of revealed religion.
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

If so, to prove this, please, quote from : 1. A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute, 2. From a text book of science 3. Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it. Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.

Is science against the Revealed Religion?

Have we found any evidence of a God? Religion says a God created Adam (from clay) and Eve (from Adam's ribs) and science says this: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Biology. Therefore, refutes.

“Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; then We fashioned the drop into a clot, then We fashioned the clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!” [23:12-14]
» The Creation of Man as Mentioned in the Quran

 

[paarsurrey]

Is science against the Revealed Religion?

Have we found any evidence of a God? Religion says a God created Adam (from clay) and Eve (from Adam's ribs) and science says this: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Biology. Therefore, refutes.

“Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; then We fashioned the drop into a clot, then We fashioned the clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!” [23:12-14]
» The Creation of Man as Mentioned in the Quran

There are many ways humans are addressed; it is a poetic way of address; why should one take it as a text book of science?
As I mentioned in one my earlier post G-d created man through the process of evolution.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Have we found any evidence of a God?

There is no discipline of science fixed for finding evidence for G-d.
Is there any?
They will never do it; it is not within the scope of science; science is incapacitated for that.
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are many ways humans are addressed; it is a poetic way of address; why should one take it as a text book of science? As I mentioned in one my earlier post G-d created man through the process of evolution.

I find nothing poetic in this. It is a stone-age description of creation of humans. Humans have traveled far beyond that. If the world was created the way science says, if the humans were created the way science says, what is the reason or the need to insert God in these things without any evidence, just because some person in Arabia claimed that an angel came to him and conveyed a God's message?

There is no discipline of science fixed for finding evidence for G-d.

Can we trace any happening in the world to an entity that the theists mention as God? We can give excellent alternative reasons why a volcano erupts, why an earthquake occurs, why a typhoon arises, why a flood occurs, why a tsunami occurs; then what is the need to insert a God in all things without any reason or rhyme?

 

[gnostic]

Science is not against religion of any sort; religions are just irrelevant to science.

Religion like Muslims and Christians have based their sources knowledges on their respective scriptures and teachings, not on science. Their scriptures are not science books, doesn't attempt to find evidences or to test their belief in God or miracles. Religion rely on belief, conviction and faith, without the need to verify if the religion is true or not.

Science is a methodology of gathering information or knowledge about the natural world, as well as artificial world (man-made stuff), and uses observations (eg experiments, tests and evidences) as a mean to verify and validate if those information to be true or prove it is false.

The problem is not so much as religion itself, but Muslims and Christians attempting to convert people , by spreading lies that their respective scriptures have scientific merits or values, when it doesn't.

The lies come from their interpretations of their scriptures, and trying to misrepresent science so that fit in with their misquoted or misinterpreted verses.

Most of my arguments in religion vs science topics, are about interpretations over the verses and Christians or Muslims using science to fit into their verses.

 

[raph]

I find nothing poetic in this. It is a stone-age description of creation of humans. Humans have traveled far beyond that. If the world was created the way science says, if the humans were created the way science says, what is the reason or the need to insert God in these things without any evidence, just because some person in Arabia claimed that an angel came to him and conveyed a God's message?

One meaning of this verse is, that God is in control over processes, that seem natural to us. It seems, like the creation of a human is a fully natural process without the need for God. But God tells us in this verse, that He actually is the force behind natural processes. It looks like a human is created by nature, but actually it is God creating him.

Why should we insert God there? Because we believe it, and we don't have another explanation for the force that "runs the world". If you don't believe any prophets, or have an explanation for "what runs the world", you don't need to insert God there. Even if you can't explain everything, you don't have to insert God there either way. It is a matter of belief, since we can't prove that God is running everything.

 

[paarsurrey]

I find nothing poetic in this. It is a stone-age description of creation of humans. Humans have traveled far beyond that. If the world was created the way science says, if the humans were created the way science says, what is the reason or the need to insert God in these things without any evidence, just because some person in Arabia claimed that an angel came to him and conveyed a God's message?

I don't agree with you.
Quran mentions six stages of physical development of man in the womb in general terms and then narrates corresponding six stages of spiritual development for a successful believer that is the subject matter of the verses in the context. Nowhere it is mentioned that it is science per se.
Your assumptions are not supported by the context of the verse, therefore, sorry to state that you are simply wrong.
One may like to read more about it on pages 1787-1790, link below:
The Holy Quran

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is a matter of belief, since we can't prove that God is running everything.

I understand that but will also mention that beliefs should be based on reasoning. Saying that a tea-pot revolves around the earth is absurd.

The Holy Quran

I think you will be better informed if you read this: Prenatal development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And see this:

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is not against religion of any sort; religions are just irrelevant to science.

I understand. In other words one means to say that the field of science is different from that of religion. There is no question of science being against the revealed religion.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion like Muslims and Christians have based their sources knowledges on their respective scriptures and teachings, not on science. Their scriptures are not science books, doesn't attempt to find evidences or to test their belief in God or miracles. Religion rely on belief, conviction and faith, without the need to verify if the religion is true or not.

Jesus and Muhammad based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d. It is a different dimension. They were not against science which deals in physical and material.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a methodology of gathering information or knowledge about the natural world, as well as artificial world (man-made stuff), and uses observations (eg experiments, tests and evidences) as a mean to verify and validate if those information to be true or prove it is false.

It is just true. I agree with it.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

I understand. In other words one means to say that the field of science is different from that of religion. There is no question of science being against the revealed religion.

This part you seems to understand what I am saying. (in red)

But this part (in green), you either (a) don't understand or (b) you this is simply an expression of your own opinion, not mine.

Yes, I agree that they are two different areas of knowledge, therefore unrelated, and there irrelevant to each other. Irrelevant, meaning that science doesn't attempt to explain god, creation, miracles, or prophecies...while religion doesn't attempt to understand the natural world, the mechanism behind nature, etc.

Islam and its scripture - the Qur'an - is all about theology and mythological stories, old law and old teaching of moral and ethics, some prophecies, and old customs (eg praying 5 times a day).

The Qur'an cannot teach you or anyone maths, physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy. (And when I say "teach", I mean comprehensive or detailed explanation. Quoting a single verse or two from the Qur'an, is not really teaching any science or providing detailed explanation.) You cannot become a doctor, biologist, physicist, astronomer, engineer, by reading the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is not textbook. The Qur'an cannot even teach people how to farm, manufacture or sell products, construct a house, etc, because the Qur'an is very limited in subject matters.

They are not against each other. Religion is irrelevant to science, just as science is irrelevant to religion.

Jesus and Muhammad based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d. It is a different dimension. They were not against science which deals in physical and material.

I never said that Jesus and Muhammad is against science. I don't think either one knows anything about science.

As to yours: "based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d", that's really based on your belief and personal opinion, and nothing more than that.

I need more than the Bible or the Qur'an say-so that these are scriptures of God. I need more than Jesus' or Muhammad's say-so that they are messengers of god. Just as Christians can't prove Jesus was a messiah, nor can Muslims prove that Gabriel had visited Muhammad in a cave.

Surely you can't blame me being skeptical about Muhammad's archangel story and where the Qur'an come from?

 

[YmirGF]

I am not proposing any experiments. I hear people say that science is against religion, I just want to see if it is so.
Regards

I've can't recall hearing any scientist saying that science is against the so-called revealed religions. Since you are making the claim that you hear people say that science is against religions then why not cite a few examples that you have run into. Then, we might have something to actually talk about.

 

[YmirGF]

Jesus and Muhammad based their religions on Word of Revelation from G-d. It is a different dimension. They were not against science which deals in physical and material.
Regards

But the highlighted part is a meaningless statement, paarsurrey, as science, as we know it today, simply did not exist at the time of Christ or even Muhammad.

 

[kepha31]

"...no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people"
(Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38 (CCC 159)

"...There are three different kinds of "sciences." The difference between them is the degree of abstraction that is involved. The mind might just focus on the physical by experimental observation. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science"). He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.

What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients...

",..Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)

Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,

"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods, no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)

This should answer the question of should we should allow evolution and/or creationism in a science class. The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem.

At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.

To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it.​

Science and Religion by A.L.

 

[paarsurrey]

while religion doesn't attempt to understand the natural world, the mechanism behind nature, etc.

The revealed religion does not interfere with the valid scientific research.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The Qur'an cannot teach you or anyone maths, physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy. (And when I say "teach", I mean comprehensive or detailed explanation. Quoting a single verse or two from the Qur'an, is not really teaching any science or providing detailed explanation.)

The revealed religion never claimed that it teaches science. Did it?
First one assumes that the revealed religion claims it and then one blames it for not doing it. The approach is not rational.
Regards